Khan v The Queen

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the applicants, Sher Afzal Khan and Youmna Khan, sought leave to bring second appeals against their convictions and sentences for using a document with intent to defraud. The Court treated the applications as applications for leave to bring second appeals, following a previous direction by Stevens J. The Khans had previously unsuccessfully appealed their convictions and sentences to this Court. In this case, the Court was required to determine whether a substantial miscarriage of justice would result if fundamental procedural error was not corrected, and whether there were exceptional circumstances warranting a reopening of the earlier decision. The Court found that the Khans had not come close to meeting the high threshold for leave to bring second appeals. The Khans' arguments were essentially attempts to reopen matters that had been thoroughly canvassed in their trial and first appeal. The Court concluded that the Khans had not demonstrated any irregularity in their first appeals that would result in a substantial miscarriage of justice if not corrected. The Court also noted the Khans' unwillingness to accept that they had a full and fair trial and appeal, and their tendency to blame others for their criminal offending.

The Court dismissed the applications for leave to bring second appeals, finding that the Khans had not met the threshold for such appeals. The Court emphasized that the Khans' arguments were attempts to relitigate issues that had already been decided, and that the Khans had not shown any fundamental procedural error or exceptional circumstances warranting a reopening of the earlier decision. The Court concluded that the Khans had not demonstrated any risk of a substantial miscarriage of justice if their second appeals were not permitted. The Court also expressed its view that the Khans should come to terms with the reality of their full and fair trial and appeal, and desist from blaming others for their criminal offending.